United States: A One-Two-Three Inning

Last Updated: June 6 2017
Article by James Beck

With the Phillies stinking the joint out – off to their worst start since World War II – and both of Boranian's local teams in last place, too (not as deeply buried as the Phillies), use of baseball imagery might seem a bit painful right now. Only our DC-based blogger has had anything worth cheering about lately, and with what's going on there recently.... Baseball must be a welcome distraction.

But a one-two-three inning was what came to mind in looking at the new decisions that turned up last week. We were struck by three relatively easy wins for defendants. Individually, they would not warrant separate post, but under a "totality of the evidence" standard, when added together, we found them worth discussing

The first is N.K. v. Abbott Laboratories, 2017 WL 2241507 (E.D.N.Y. May 22, 2017), a Depakote/birth defects case. There are a number of these cases around, and we have already commented on several. But we have to say, if the other side's experts are as poor as they were in N.K, this litigation deservedly isn't going anywhere. N.K. went away on summary judgment after all of the plaintiff's "experts" – and the term deserves to be in quotes – were excluded from testifying. The first purported expert was the minor-plaintiff's treating pediatrician, who was totally out of her depth:

[The witness] has never conducted research on Depakote or valproic acid. Nor has she researched the effects of in utero exposure to valproic acid ("valproate exposure"). Prior to [minor plaintiff's] first visit, her knowledge of Depakote was limited to refilling prescriptions for epileptic patients. Since that initial visit, she has conducted little to no additional research on Depakote, valproic acid, or valproate exposure.

2017 WL 2241507, at *2 (record citations omitted). Unsurprisingly, the court found this witness "not qualified to testify that Depakote caused [minor-plaintiff's] injuries." Id. at *3. She possessed no applicable medical experience nor had she bothered even to review the relevant literature. Id. (she "did not perform any research or make any additional investigation that might qualify her as an expert on valproate exposure"). Instead, "[h]er attempts to understand the cause of [minor-plaintiff's] injuries were limited to a single review of a single medical book, the day of his first visit." Id. This is hardly the kind of expert we would expect to see in litigation where a strong causation case is present.

The second expert in N.K. "ha[d] a more substantial background" – it could hardly have been less – but was not even a medical doctor. Id. at *4. Again, we would not expect to see this kind of "expert" in a strong case. Lack of a medical degree is a problem. "[C]ourts have consistently drawn a distinction between the qualifications of medical and non-medical doctors, noting that non-medical doctors who are qualified to diagnose a medical condition may be unable to reliably determine its cause." Id. This witness was a "teratologist and toxicologist," but had no relevant diagnostic expertise. "[B]y his own testimony he has never evaluated children, has never been called upon to diagnose dysmorphic features or autism in a child, and is not a clinician." Id.

Nor did these unqualified "experts" use proper methodology. They both purported to engage in the last refuge of a Daubert scoundrel – differential diagnosis. The pediatrician "viewed [minor plaintiff's] condition as either genetic or the result of prenatal valproate exposure." Id. at *5. Which one didn't she investigate?

She reached this conclusion before eliminating any genetic causes. . . . Not only did [she] fail to eliminate alternative causes before reaching her initial conclusion, she lacked the knowledge to independently rule out genetic causes.

Id. Genetics were a serious alternative "[A]t least four other treating physicians have recommended further genetic testing to determine the cause of [minor plaintiff's] injuries." Id. The court could hardly be faulted for wondering what these plaintiffs were hiding in not having this testing done.

The other expert – the one that wasn't even a doctor – was, if anything worse. He "did not conduct his own independent investigation," rather "[h]is opinion is based entirely on reviewing existing reports provided to him by Plaintiffs." Id. at *7. Having to spoon-feed an expert is another indicator of a weak case. Beyond that, his "attempt to rule out potential alternative causes of [minor plaintiff's] condition is plagued by the same problems as" the pediatrician's. Indeed, "[h]e relied on [her] flawed report in ruling out genetic causes." Id.

Finally, plaintiffs failed to slip the pediatrician's opinions in the back door, as "factual" testimony by a treater. A treater's testimony was equally subject to Daubert:

Even if such an opinion could be read into her records, classifying [her] as a fact expert does not relieve this Court of its duty to ensure she utilized reliable methods in reaching her opinion. Courts in this district have found that when a treating physician seeks to render an opinion on causation, that opinion is subject to the same standards of scientific reliability that govern the expert opinions of physicians hired solely for the purposes of litigation.

Id. at *8 (citations and quotation marks omitted). To us, this is the most significant legal ruling in N.K.

Summary judgment granted. One away on a dribbler to the mound.

Next up, Rincon v. Covidien, 2017 WL 2242969 (S.D.N.Y. May 22, 2017). Rincon failed on a motion to dismiss, because of TwIqbal. Rincon involved hernia mesh, and an alleged injury suffered more than six years after implantation. Id. at *1. Plaintiff's complaint had a rather fundamental – and fatal – flaw. It failed to allege that a defect caused the alleged injuries:

[Plaintiff] fails to allege any facts that plausibly establish such causation. . . . Taken together, these facts − even liberally construed (not that there is a basis for liberal construction here) − fall far short of demonstrating that [defendant's] mesh was a "but for" cause of [her] later injuries. . . . Nothing in the Amended Complaint even endeavors to explain why the mesh is a more likely, let alone proximate, cause of [plaintiff's] alleged harms.

Id. One would have thought that, with an obvious serious timing issue, the plaintiff would have tried harder in Rincon to allege the sort of critical facts supportive of causation. The absence of these facts is another marker of a weak case.

But not only did the plaintiff in Rincon fail to allege causation; she also failed to allege defect:

Under New York law, Rincon must prove the existence of a defect. . . . But [plaintiff] fails to allege a defect except in the most conclusory terms: that [defendant] manufactured the PCO mesh, that the mesh was used during her hernia surgery in 2006, that she needed subsequent medical procedures in 2012 and 2013, and thus [defendant] must not have "properly manufactured, tested, inspected, packaged, labeled, distributed, marketed, examined, sold, supplied, prepared and/or provided [ ] the proper warnings" regarding the mesh.

Id. at *2. To make matters worse, plaintiff tried to make up her pleading defects in her brief opposing dismissal. The court was not impressed. Those assertions "serve only to illustrate the deficiencies in her Amended Complaint − namely, that it does not identify any actual defect in the coating and says nothing about how the coating, even if defective, caused [her] specific injuries." Id.

On top of that, plaintiff only "suggest[ed]," but did not actually seek, leave to amend. Id. Plaintiff's notably poor pleading resulted in dismissal with prejudice. "[E]ven if [she] were to add her new 'facts' . . ., her claims would all still fail for the reasons discussed above."

Called third strike. Two down, and add one to our TwIqbal cheat sheet.

The final out was made by Merancio v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 2017 WL 2257124 (E.D. Cal. May 23, 2017), where summary judgment was granted after the plaintiffs failed to retain the allegedly defective implant. The complaint itself was a mess, which certainly did plaintiffs no favors. "[N]either factual details concerning plaintiffs' claimed injuries nor specific legal theories of liability have been alleged in any detail." Id. at *1. Having lost the device that supposedly failed plaintiffs "presented no substantive evidence concerning the merits of their claims." Id. Instead, they pursued another all too common "last refuge of a scoundrel" tactics – attempting to litigate the defendant's supposed discovery lapses.

That didn't work this time. Whatever deficiencies (if any at all) in the defendant's initial disclosures were irrelevant by the time summary judgment rolled around. Even if the identity of the affiant who supported the summary judgment motion was disclosed too late, it was disclosed "well prior to the close of discovery," and the witness "was ultimately deposed by plaintiffs." Id. at *4. Like too much pine tar on a bat, the violation, if it existed at all, was harmless. Or, to mix sports metaphors, "no harm, no foul." "Plaintiffs have made no showing that they were prejudiced by the timing of defendant's disclosures. Indeed, plaintiffs have made no allegations of any harm − not even general, vague, and conclusory ones − flowing from defendant's allegedly belated disclosures." Id.

So plaintiffs tried again, arguing that the court should ignore the defendant's affidavit, which was factually undisputed, because the affiant "failed to include a list of cases in which he has appeared as an expert." Id. at *5. The court was having none of plaintiffs' trivial pursuit. If plaintiffs thought this deficiency was so important, they should have done something about it earlier, rather than pursue a nitpicking litigation strategy:

[P]laintiffs' counsel never asked defense counsel or the expert for this list and never filed a motion to compel with the court seeking the information or the imposition of sanctions. . . . Again, plaintiffs do not even generally suggest how they have been harmed as a result of these minor deficiencies in [defendant's] expert report. Indeed, when asked at the hearing on the pending motion, plaintiffs' counsel suggested he purposefully did not pursue any further efforts to obtain the list of cases in which [the affiant] had appeared as an expert because, in counsel's view, it made defendant's expert "attackable."

Id. (emphasis added).

With plaintiffs' discovery smokescreen blown away, summary judgment was inevitable. "It [was] undisputed on summary judgment that, at the time the parts used in [plaintiff's] knee replacement left the control of defendant, they had been inspected, passed quality control inspections, and were in compliance with all applicable FDA regulations." Id. at *7. Defect at sale is a "necessary element" of strict liability. Id. Further, California simply does not recognize strict liability design defect claims involving prescription medical products. Id. Negligence failed because of a "complete failure of proof" that the device failed when it shouldn't have. Id. at *8. Finally, plaintiffs' warranty claim was dismissed (in addition to the above grounds) on an interesting legal ruling − that the personal injury damages were not available for alleged breach of contract:

Here, plaintiff seeks general damages for pain, suffering, and inconvenience, and special damages for medical expenses, future medical expenses, loss of earnings, [plaintiff] seeks here are generally not cognizable in claims sounding in contract in California.

Id. (citations omitted). Finally, with no evidence "that the defendant negligently injured" her spouse, that wife-plaintiff's consortium claim bit the dust. Id. at *9.

Side retired on a (very) foul popup.

Weak claims all in N.K., Rincon, and Merancio. Daubert, TwIqbal, and simple failure to prove the claim defeated these actions, and did so fairly expeditiously. Which is as it should be. Weak claims have no business being brought, and where plaintiffs are unable to hide weak claims in MDLs, these cases demonstrate that (at least in the federal courts), the civil justice system still works.

This article is presented for informational purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
James Beck
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions